Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.23 seconds)
Jayapaul Mohan vs State Rep.By on 16 November, 2017 cites

Ritesh Sinha vs State Of U.P.& Anr on 7 December, 2012

13.After considering the law on this point including Article 20 Clause (3) of the Indian Constitution, Section 311 A of Code of Criminal Procedure as amended in the year 2005 and the Judgments rendered by the Constitutional Bench in Kathi and Selvi, one of the learned Judges in Ritish case has held that there is no violation of fundamental rights and though there is no specific reference of providing voice sample under Code 311 A of Cr.P.C., there is no bar for the Court to order drawing of voice sample. Whereas the other learned Judge has deferred from that view. Therefore the matter has been referred to Larger Bench. The judgment in Ritish case was rendered on 07.12.2012. Till date, Supreme Court has not taken a call on this.
Supreme Court of India Cites 57 - Cited by 122 - Full Document

Selvi & Ors vs State Of Karnataka & Anr on 5 May, 2010

19. Applying the test laid down by this court in Kathi Kalu Oghad which is relied upon in Selvi case, I have no hesitation in coming to a conclusion that if an accused person is directed to give his voice sample during the course of investigation of an offence, there is no violation of his right under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. Voice sample is like finger print impression, signature or specimen handwriting of an accused. Like giving of a finger print impression or specimen writing by the accused for the purposes of investigation, giving of a voice sample for the purpose of investigation cannot be included in the expression to be a witness. By giving voice sample the accused does not convey information based upon his personal knowledge which can incriminate him. A voice sample by itself is fully innocuous. By comparing it with tape recorded conversation, the investigator may draw his conclusion but, voice sample by itself is not a testimony at all. When an accused is asked to give voice sample, he is not giving any testimony of the nature of a personal testimony. When compared with the recorded conversation with the help of mechanical process, it may throw light on the points in controversy. It cannot be said, by any stretch of imagination that by giving voice sample, the accused conveyed any information based upon his personal knowledge and became a witness against himself. The accused by giving the voice sample merely gives identification data to the investigating agency, he is not subjected to any testimonial compulsion. Thus, taking voice sample of an accused by the police during investigation is not hit by Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
Supreme Court of India Cites 92 - Cited by 290 - K G Balakrishnan - Full Document

The State Of Bombay vs Kathi Kalu Oghad And Others on 4 August, 1961

12.This Court after considering the plea raised by the petitioner and the Judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court namely Ritesh Sinha, (supra) and Selvi V. State of Karnataka, (supra) and the observation made by the Constitution Bench in State of Bombay Vs Kathi Kalu Oghad (supra ), is of the firm opinion that till the dissenting Judgment of one among the two judges rendered in Ritesh Vs. State of U.P. is consider by the Larger Bench, the view expressed by the three Judges Bench in Selvi case referring the 11 judges bench decision in Kathi Kalu Oghad will prevail.
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 403 - B P Sinha - Full Document
1